69. RDAs would be given executive responsibility
for developing the integrated strategies in consultation with
relevant regional and sub-regional stakeholders, regional assemblies
would be abolished and local authorities would be responsible
for agreeing the integrated regional strategies.[55]
Each strategy would be jointly signed off by the Secretaries of
State for BERR and CLG.[56]

70. The Government undertook to ensure that local
authority leaders and all sub-regions were represented in a way
which enabled "strategic decision making and prioritisation
of decisions across each region, possibly involving a regional
forum of leaders".[57]
The subsequent consultation document proposed that a forum of
local authority leaders, representing all the local authorities
in the region, would sign off the draft strategy and help to hold
the RDA and its regional delivery partners to account.[58]
If regional partners failed to agree the draft regional strategy,
the RDA would submit the draft, with a note setting out the areas
of disagreement, to Ministers. Ministers would consider this,
and any independent advice, before deciding on a course of action.[59]

71. The original SNR document did not refer to the
expected timescales for the process but the consultation document
stated that a full regional strategy review could, potentially,
be achieved within 24 months: this included 12 months for scoping
and preparatory work; three months for the RDA to draft and agree
the strategy; six months consultation; two months for consequential
revision and a further two months for its agreement by the Secretaries
of State.[60] It stated
that it would be for the regions themselves to decide how frequently
the strategy should be renewed, but suggested five yearly reviews
would be appropriate.[61]

72. Given RDAs' enhanced role and responsibility
, the SNR recognised the need to address their "lack of a
clear democratic mandate".[62]
It proposed that the Local Authority Leaders' Forums should also
be responsible for scrutinising RDA performance[63]
and stated the Government's intention to develop clear mechanisms
for enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of regional institutions as
"there is not currently a structured, systematic role for
MPs to play in holding regional institutions to account".[64]
RDAs would continue to be managed by a single Whitehall department,
BERR, which would also have responsibility for the REP PSA (see
paragraph 14).[65]

73. The SNR also proposed reform of the RDAs' objectives,
replacing the existing 12 PSAs and ten output targets with one
regional economic growth objective. This new objective would be
aimed at increasing regional Gross Value Added (GVA) per head,
in line with the REP PSA, and would provide a framework for all
RDA activity and the integrated regional strategy. All RDAs would
be responsible for achieving this growth target, working with
other stakeholders, and delegating funding and delivery to regional
and sub-regional partners, as agreed.[66]

74. Although the SNR proposed this extended remit
for RDAs, it made it clear that they would remain business led
and focussed.[67]

76. Representations from the business community also
supported the proposal. The CBI argued that it made no sense to
have the regional and spatial planning strategies as separate
documents administered and delivered by separate organisations.[69]

77. Although there was agreement that economic and
spatial planning should be combined into a single strategy, however,
there was disagreement about the appropriate balance between the
two. The private sector argued that RDAs should be careful not
to lose their economic focus or attention to businesses' needs.
In contrast, local authorities were keen that the focus of the
integrated regional strategy should include wider community issues,
rather than being solely economic. Essex County Council considered
the challenge facing RDAs would be "to make that translation
from being focused around development of a regional economic strategy
to actually trying to deal with the compromises and complexities
of spatial planning around communities and the way communities
developbecause it is about people; it is much more about
people than it is about just the economy".[70]

79. RDAs countered this argument by referring to
their "very, very detailed accountability": from their
internal procedures and boards (made up of business, local authority
and other representatives), to Parliament, Government, regional
assemblies and the National Audit Office.[72]
As EMDA stated:

"We do take managed risks. You are right,
I do not have to stand next May to be re-elected as a local authority
so I can take hard decisions. I would argue that I am more accountable
in many ways by what I decide because it is immediate and, it
is like business, if I make big mistakes my shareholders say,
"goodbye". It is the same principle, I think."[73]

82. The business community was further concerned
that local authorities and local representatives had limited experience
of economic development and business issues. They argued that
the proposals would result in the economic aspects of the strategy
depending on the agreement of these councillors. The BCC went
on to suggest that, if the forum of local authority leaders could
not agree a strategy because of spatial planning issues, it would
delay both the spatial planning and the economic planning aspects
of the strategy.[75]
Other submissions were concerned that the inclusion of local authorities
could potentially expose the process to party political divisions.
In written evidence, the CBI argued that "by essentially
giving local authorities a veto, the Government runs the risk
that regional strategies will follow the 'course of least political
resistance' instead of identifying and focusing upon the key areas
of development and regeneration."[76]
In oral evidence, the CBI went on to state that the process might
place "quite a burden on those local authorities (with a
dissenting minority) for ensuring that they can reach agreement
on what, after all, might be some quite politically difficult
decisions that have to be made".[77]

83. A number of business submissions suggested ways
to prevent this situation occurring. The CBI argued that the forum
should be opened up to all core stakeholders who would be collectively
responsible for directing the development of the integrated regional
strategy and become a focal point for engagement and consultation.
The RDAs argued, however, that this would simply be reinventing
the regional assemblies.[78]
The EEF argued that the forum should have the power to make recommendations
to change the strategy, but should not have a veto.[79]

84. RDAs themselves also seemed unclear about what
would happen if local authorities disagreed with the draft strategy.
EMDA stated "at the moment, we do not know and that is one
of the things that CLG are looking at".[80]
Advantage West Midlands (AWM), however, argued that it would be
unlikely for the process to reach this stalemate and pointed to
the experiences of the nine RDAs in drafting and agreeing the
regional strategies (every three years) to date, with only one
strategy disputed at the agreement stage.[81]

developing a model for a Regional Leaders' Forum
that would be both small enough to be "manageable" and
"able to engage effectively with the RDA" whilst simultaneously
being "representative" and having "sufficient authority"
to take strategy decisions and agree priorities on behalf of all
local authorities in the region. This will be a particular problem
in the South East, with 74 very different local authorities covering
a wide range of economic and social experiences.[84]

86. At the Committee's meeting on 7 October 2008,
Essex and Lancashire County Councils both suggested that each
region should be given sufficient flexibility and discretion to
devise a forum which best suited its size and local authority
climate, perhaps with a main forum delegating responsibility for
some issues to committees.[85]

for all the talk of RDAs as strategic leaders,
there is a clear contradiction here with the role of the local
authority as a place-shaper and community leader. Put very simply,
RDAs do not engage with local communities.[92]

91. When giving oral evidence, however, RDAs highlighted
the significant emphasis on consultation in the SNR proposals,
arguing that:

we do not sit in a darkened room doing this,
there is a huge consultation process, a huge inquiry in public,
so everybody has the opportunity to say, "No, it shouldn't
be in bloody Bromsgrove, don't put it in the strategy". It
is not as if we go into a little corner somewhere and say, "I've
got a good idea, let's put them in Bromsgrove because that will
upset people and it doesn't matter because we don't have to worry
about the people there". This is a hugely open process.[93]

Streamlined, manageable, strategic
and able to take the long term view;

Representative of their region, including key
sub-regions, different levels of authorities and the political
balance; and

Made up of local authority leaders, able to act
on behalf of their authorities.[95]

95. Clause 66, Leaders' boards, provides that
they will be drawn from 'participating authorities' whose area
falls wholly or partly within the region and that these authorities
include district councils, county councils, National Park authorities
and the Broads Authority.

96. The proposals and Bill are silent on how RDAs
and LALBs will work together in undertaking their joint responsibility,
although Clause 74(1)(a), Revision: supplementary states
that the Secretary of State may make regulations regarding the
procedure the responsible regional authorities should follow in
revising the strategy.

97. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers
to intervene if it is felt that the LALB is not operating effectively.
Clause 66(8), Leaders' boards, gives the Secretary of State power
to withdraw approval for a Local Authority Leaders' Board that
is not operating effectively and clause 67, Responsible regional
authorities, provides that, if there is no Leaders' Board for
a region, the RDA becomes the responsible regional authority solely
responsible for drawing up the strategy. These provisions complement
the existing powers available to the Secretary of State to give
guidance or directions to RDAs in relation to the exercise of
their functions through s27(1) Regional Development Agencies Act
1998.

98. Additional powers are reserved for the Secretary
of State to intervene in the revision process. Clause 68(5)(a),
Review and revision by responsible regional authorities,
provides that the Secretary of State can direct that the strategy
be revised and s72(1)(a), Approval of revision by Secretary
of State permits the Secretary of State him or herself to
revise the strategy if the responsible regional authorities fail
to comply with this direction.

99. The revised SNR proposals state that RDAs and
LALBs will be given the flexibility to agree the form and content
of regional strategies, although a number of issues which they
must cover were set out.[96]
Clause 71, Matters which must be taken into account on revision,
states that regard must be paid to national policies and advice
contained in guidance set out by the Secretary of State as well
as to a range of other matters such as the availability of resources,
and the strategies of adjoining regions or devolved administrations.

100. Clause 69, Community involvement, places
a duty on RDAs and LALBs to produce a statement on how they will
involve their communities during the drafting process. The revised
SNR proposals also state that there must be close dialogue between
RDAs and LALBs with government departments to ensure a close alignment
of priorities and investment.[97]

101. Clause 70, Examination in public, provides
that an Examination in Public panel[98]
may be established to report to the RDA and LALB . The consultation
response notes this is to "flag issues concerning the evidence
base and to identify substantive issues of controversy at an early
stage".[99] The
RDA and LALB must consider any such panel's recommendations.

102. Clause 75, Implementation, requires RDA
and LALBs to produce an implementation plan setting out how the
strategy will be delivered. The plan must have 'buy-in' from regional
stakeholders and an annual monitoring report will show progress.[100]

103. The revised SNR proposals stated that the Government
was still considering whether it would set statutory timetables
for the strategy to be produced[101]
and the Bill is silent on this matter.

104. The Government provided a policy statement on
regional strategies in January 2009. The document sets out information
regarding the strategies, including the process to be followed
when drafting and agreeing them. Paragraph 3.9 states that local
authorities and RDAs must make a scheme for each region setting
out how the RDA and LALB will work together to fulfil their duties
to jointly produce the draft integrated regional strategy and
implementation scheme and what the decision making process will
be, including resolving differences.[102]

107. Standing Order rule 117A established a regional
grand committee for each of the regions. Their membership will
"consist of those members who represent constituencies within
the region and up to five other members nominated by the Committee
of Selection". As the Leader of the House explained:

While the motions to establish regional Select
Committees present the House with an opportunity to provide for
detailed investigations into and reporting on agencies and action
at regional level, we want to ensure that all Members in a region
can be involved in greater regional accountability. We therefore
propose that as well as the regional Select Committees, we establish
regional Grand Committees to include all Members from the region.
The regional Grand Committees will be a forum to consider the
"state of the region" and would meet annually, or twice
a year if the need arose. As with regional Select Committees,
we expect that they will generally meet in the region, taking
Parliament out of Westminster and into the regions.

Regional Grand Committees will be able to hold
wide-ranging debates and statements on regional issues, and provide
Members in that region with an opportunity to put oral questions
to regional Ministers to hold them to account for their work in
fulfilling the responsibilities set out in the "Governance
of Britain" Green Paper. That will meet our commitment that
they should be directly accountable to Parliament in that role.[104]

110. The Minister, however, considered that the new
proposals ensured complete accountability:

The Government's thinking evolved on this as
the consultation took place and the process went through.
In the end what we have asked local authorities and RDAs to do
is to work together on this. There is nothing more directly accountable
than elected local authority leaders, they are there and it is
their role in this to be that democratically elected voice. I
think there is an accountability of RDAs because they are accountable
to the elected government of the day for what they do as well,
so I do not accept that they are free-ranging out there and answerable
to no-one.[108]

112. This was also raised by Dr Paul Benneworth from
the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies at the University
of Newcastle upon Tyne, who argued that greater emphasis should
have been placed on the regional arrangements to ensure that local
authorities would be able to agree with each other, and with their
RDA, over the form and content of their regional strategy. He
considered that, if this was not addressed, the exceptional powers
for Government intervention will become instead the standard approach
to regional planning.[111]

113. In oral evidence, Ms Bernadette Kelly, Director
of Planning from CLG, acknowledged that there might be difficulties
in securing agreement across all the levels of local authorities
and agreed that "there may be tensions obviously in some
regions, but what we hope is that there will be an incentive here
for local authorities to work together to come up with a sensible
proposition".[112]

114. The issue of the membership of the LALBs and
their relationship with RDAs was also considered at length by
the House of Lords during Committee stage of the Bill on 24 February
2009. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Government
Spokesperson for Communities and Local Government, Baroness Andrews,
confirmed that: "as part of the working arrangements for
preparing the draft strategy, we expect the RDA and the leaders'
board to set out how they will resolve any differences between
them, either on the process or content of the strategy. We expect
that mechanism to be in place before they start on a revision."[113]